"...I supported abortion rights early in 1973, as I do now, but I was startled in January of that year when the Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Constitution contained an implied right to abortion. This was not the first step towards legalization of the procedure. Both New York and California--then our two largest states--had passed laws legalizing it in recent years, and it was certainly possible that other states might follow. And to find the right to abortion in the Constitution, the Court had to rely on a relatively obscure doctrine of "substantive due process," which allowed it to declare a right that was not enumerated in the Constitution. It was not, in short, immediately obvious to an intelligent lay person--and I continue to think that it is not obvious--that Roe V. Wade was in any sense inevitable given the text of the US Constitution. It is equally clear, in my view, that the Constitution does not ban abortion.
"For proponents of abortion rights, however, the Constitutional issue was secondary from the beginning, while feminist conceptions of rights were primary...." DK
There are so many different things that were not enumerated in the constitution......
Substantive due process, phrased in different terms, was an old and venerable thread in British law and in Canon Law.
What the Constitution had stated was left to the people was part of what substantive due process came later to involve.
The distinctions between law and equity, and that between common law courts and church courts are also implicated in these distinctions.
The term "substantive due process" itself is commonly used in two ways: to identify a particular line of case law and to signify a particular political attitude toward judicial review under the two due process clauses.
"For proponents of abortion rights, however, the Constitutional issue was secondary from the beginning, while feminist conceptions of rights were primary...." DK
There are so many different things that were not enumerated in the constitution......
Substantive due process, phrased in different terms, was an old and venerable thread in British law and in Canon Law.
What the Constitution had stated was left to the people was part of what substantive due process came later to involve.
The distinctions between law and equity, and that between common law courts and church courts are also implicated in these distinctions.
The term "substantive due process" itself is commonly used in two ways: to identify a particular line of case law and to signify a particular political attitude toward judicial review under the two due process clauses.
Procedural due process protects individuals by ensuring that adjudications are fair and impartial.
Substantive due process protects individuals judicially against legislation or executive orders that exceed government authority.
Vested or natural or divine rights, versus the police power, was another prism through which to view the issues.
Nature and convention, or nature versus convention, depending on one's political philosophy....yet another dimension.
Vested or natural or divine rights, versus the police power, was another prism through which to view the issues.
Nature and convention, or nature versus convention, depending on one's political philosophy....yet another dimension.
J.Taney, in Dred Scott, pronounced without elaboration that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because an "act of Congress that deprived a citizen of his liberty or property merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws there, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law."
No comments:
Post a Comment